From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Nuking the Pop Cult Section From Orbit (it's the only way to be sure)[edit]

I understand that those of us with no first-hand exposure to Japan outside anime and video games will think that listing monsters that vaguely resemble Tsuchinoko is somehow important. It isn't. First, nothing in Pop Cult is referenced, which means it shouldn't be there to begin with. Secondly, it embarrassing to the rest of us since it gives undue weight to things that are the definition of trivia. When you're 13 years old then I can understand why noting down every time the term Tsuchinoko is mentioned in toys and games marketed for Western audiences probably feels vastly important. Once you break open an actual book, though, and do some frikkin' research that would stand up to academic inquiry, in other words take Japanese mythology seriously, then whatever you come up, video games or no, should and will go into this article. Anything else needs to be drop kicked and deleted.Duende-Poetry (talk) 20:01, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

So this is the Tsuchinoko details. I have been playing metal gear solid 3 snake eater you see, and wondered what it was!

me too :) thanks for the info, guy who wrote this (wakka?)

Glad you found it useful. I actually just translated the content from the Japanese version. Japanese mythology is really pretty awesome. --waka 04:54, 27 July 2005 (UTC)


Wow, I don't think Doraemon should be used as a source of info. Yes, I know the Japanese wiki uses it, but it still doesn't belong there. It should belong in the 'fictional depictions' section. IIRC, the episode was about how Tsuchinoko were popular pets in the future, so the main characters go to the future in their time machine to buy a Tsuchinoko, and bring it back so they can win a prize for being the first to 'find' one. Of course they are foiled, and their rivals end up finding it first. If this is a credible story, I suggest the Time Machine article needs revising :) Identity0 23:44, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

I guess I don't agree. When I translated the page, I just brought the data over verbatim. Though Doraemon probably isn't the most reliable of sources, we're talking about the characteristics of a fictional creature here, and Doraemon predates all of the other pop-culture media references in the article. Sure, it'd be better if we had a reference from the Kojiki, but since we don't, I think referencing Doraemon is better than omitting the data completely. Also, as this is a translation of a Japanese article, I think that deferring this decision to the original author is appropriate. --waka 03:20, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
I would disagree with that. Wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopedia of true and verifiable (as well as verified) information, not a resource for translated websites. While there's nothing wrong with getting info from a good website and translating it, if the website uses questionable sources then there's no reason to be faithful there. Also, just because the creature is "mythological" (I would use the word "folkloric" instead) doesn't mean that anything goes. Folklore is a valid academic field of study, and you can bet that folklorists won't use sources like manga when they write their articles. The standards of Wikipedia should be nothing less. Shikino 15:24, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

It might be feasible to add a paragraph to the effect that stories about the tsuchinoko are common in children's manga like Doraemon and Chibi Maruko Chan. I think maybe a "tsuchinoko hunt" was a somewhat common game for Japanese kids to play in the Seventies and Eighties, but that now it's been forgotten. Not sure if any of that is worth including. --Mujokan (talk) 08:57, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

El Salvador?[edit]

I removed this edit from the page recently:

There Is also a legend in a small latin american country that states that the tsuchinoko can be fought by luring it with alcohol.If the person kills the tsuchinoko it will release a small crystal from its mouth,as long as the victor carries the crystal he will never lose a fight.It has also been said that the tsuchinoko can be found in the small country of El Salvador(mainly in its tropical rainforests).

Now, I'm pretty confused: are there legends in El Salvador based on Japanese myth? That would be pretty interesting, if there some sort of source to site. I removed the block because it seems more likely that the author was referring to a similar cryptid from South America. --waka 14:15, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

"Something similar" would possibly be a caecilian. Some species do live in Central America. Probably they heard of the Japanese myth and adapted it to their own folklore. It is interesting to consider whether the myth of the Tsuchinoko itself was inspired by a now extinct caecilian. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:16, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Application of WP:V[edit]

While I completely agree that assertions with no source should be backed marked per WP:V, it seems rather pointless to mark information that is speculation about a mythical creature as unverified. Even if there were a source, the information would still be speculation and not a verifiable fact, as the creature in question here is not verifiable fact itself. I guess what I mean is, I think that speculation about people mistaking other animals for the tsuchinoko should be clearly marked as speculation, but are otherwise impossible to further verify. I've put such data under a "Possible Explanations" header in order to indicate that the content is indeed speculation. In other areas of the document, such as the claim that references to this creature can be found in the Kojiki, are verifiable and therefore certainly require citations. But when it comes to theories about myth, {{fact}} does not seem useful. --waka 20:03, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I tagged it for one very simple reason. Wiki policy states that claims and hypothesis (even about cryptids and myths) need to have come from a third party source that can be verified by other users. This is to prevent users, such as you and I, from adding our own personal opinions and hypothesis to a page and claiming that they are shared by others. Just find a half reputable cryptid site containing that hypothesis, and put in a citation too it. It's a mythical creature on a non contentious page so WP:RS is low on the priority list (Forums and blogs are still pretty much out, as are sites that are mostly advertising).
As for the Kojiki, it's a book and a claim is being made about its contents, so any citation about it's would pretty much read
perfectblue 21:24, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
I think you misunderstood my point. I understand the meaning and intent of the verifiable information policy; what I'm saying is that the information in the Possible Explanations section is unverifiable by its very nature. Finding a source for the claims in that section does not make them any more factual because the topic itself is non-factual. If the information is so speculative that it requires a source to repeat the speculation, it probably should be removed entirely. As for easily verifiable work like the Kojiki claim, a citation notice makes sense. Also, for the record, the contents in the Possible Explanations section come directly from the Japanese version of this page, which also lists no specific sources. --waka 00:25, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
Folklore and mythology is full of cultural meaning and is an area of academic study, and even if it weren't, it's the traditional beliefs of a specific culture and shouldn't be messed with. The idea that "anything goes" may be rampant in fantasy novels, but that idea has no place in folklore or folklore studies, and it certainly has no place at Wikipedia. Further, with your argument, I might as well say that in Mark Twain's novels, Tom Sawyer and Huckleberry Finn were gay, and they weren't real so why does it matter if I can't prove it? You can make up whatever you want on your own website, but Wikipedia isn't the place for that. Shikino 15:31, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
"Finding a source for the claims in that section does not make them any more factual because the topic itself is non-factual"
This page is about the Tsuchinoko as a legend, and as a cryptid, NOT as a zoological animal. As things stand, 100% factual as a legend, and 100% factual as a cryptid, therefore this article should follow WP:V as much as possible, and avoid uncited claims just as if we were stating that it was a 100% factual animal (we're citign the legend about the creature, not the creature itself).
The purpose of WP:V in this context is not to prove that the creature is real, but to prove that the legend and what the legend says is real (EG, to prove that it's not something that you/I made up for a joke). This applies to conjecture about the creature as well. Conjecture is perfectly valid, but it can't be your/my conjecture, it has to be veritably somebody else's conjecture.
As for the Japanese version, I've read it, and I am aware that the information comes from there and that it isn't sourced there either, but that's no reason to accept it. Suppose that the Japanese version said that it appeared on Idol Talk and sung <<Real Face>>, you wouldn't simply transfer that over, would you?
perfectblue 09:47, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Like I said, I understand the purpose of WP:V and fully support it. The reference you've just added is excellent, and it improves the quality of the page. My specific complaint is that sourcing conjecture makes it no more useful to the reader because it is, in fact, conjecture. My suggestion was that if you feel that the possible explanation section requires citation, we should probably remove it because even with a source, it is still a non-verifiable claim. But whatever, I'm happy with the page as it stands now, so I'll leave that up to you. --waka 18:33, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not going to rush in and delete the text because it isn't source, mainly the tag is there to encourage another user to add a citation in, thus improving the entry. I still stand that guidelines state that conjecture must be WP:V to prove that it is third party conjecture. The policy is there, for example, to prevent somebody from stating their own opinion as if it were the opinion of a larger group.
perfectblue 19:47, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
Folklore is a 100% real phenomenon, about which true things and false things can be said, even if the creatures it describes aren't. Please don't confuse the two. Kotengu 小天狗 07:45, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
I've been arguing this for ages, but something needs to be proven to be real folklore (as in, there is a real world text describing it), rather than something made up recently.
perfectblue 08:58, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
I think you guys are presenting an argument about factual folklore content compared to factual folklore reporting, and proposing that both require citation. That's fine, I have no complaint with that. The myth does need to be reported correctly, and if there are questions about the credibility of the article, a citation notice is indeed warranted. The specific citation notice I reverted, however, seemed to request a source for the allegation that the Tsuchinoko may resemble a blue-tongued lizard. If you can find a source for that, it certainly won't damage the quality of the page, but I don't think the article would be improved significantly either. The blue-tongued lizard does indeed appear similar to the description of the mythical creature given in the article--this can be 'verified' by looking a picture of the lizard on its page. A citation notice for this sort of point seems superfluous. I dunno, it's a pretty dumb thing to argue about, I guess, but I hope you can understand my confusion. --waka 04:28, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
I think that we're on the same wavelength. We need to ensure that we are correctly reporting the content of folklore, not that the content itself is scientifically/historically accurate. I think that the matter is closed now.
I've run into this before with a couple of other paranormal subjects, with users who demand that something, for example; an urban myth, be deleted because the events in the myth are not scientifically or historically accurate, even though the myth itself is real and is being reported on accurately.
perfectblue 09:01, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
I see. It wasn't my intent to suggest that the content of the myth must be verified--I mistakenly thought that is what you were arguing for. Sorry for the confusion. Anyway, the article as it stands now is fine with me. --waka 20:44, 7 January 2007 (UTC)